Feed aggregator

I am very lucky, my son, who just called in, is an IT Manager just set up Chrome Remote Desktop which was beyond me (I was using the BT hubs IP address instead of my Windows machine's). I now have my PC on the Chromebook. I tried Photoshop and Lightroom and they both work great. I can now get everything running on the Chromebook, amazing! I can now easily copy all my PC files and photos into Google Drive using the Chromebook, although this can be done from the PC easily enough.

The other thing bugging me was the Epson 370 photo scanner presently connected to my old Windows PC. There isn't a driver for Chrome so it couldn't be used. But, my HP 7500 printer/scanner is web enabled. I found its IP address and put it in the Chrome browser and Hey Presto, there was a remote control panel for the scanner on the Chromebooks screen. I am able to scan now from the Windows PC via Chrome Remote Desktop or via the printer scanner.

I must try my tablet and phone on remote desktop as you have suggested.

Vehicles continuing to cross at a junction as the lights have just turned red is very common. There is a roundabout at Plymouth (Marsh Mills) where this happens at virtually every change of the lights. The lights are green, traffic flows through, then the amber light comes on, traffic continues to flow through, then it goes to red and two or three vehicles will still keep going. At the other part of the junction the lights change to amber from red as the red comes on on the other lights. By the time it is green and traffic has started to accelerate away from rest the vehicles which have jumped the red light are clear - only just, but they have gone.

The point is at this junction it is so common it is more or less accepted practice. I suspect this may be the case at this London crossing and if you watched it now you would see vehicles still crossing as the red light comes on. In other words, what the lorry did was probably not that unusual.

A vehicle or cyclist crossing a green light at speed the moment it goes green risks colliding with vehicles still squeezing through on red, which seems to be what happened to the cyclist in the video. He anticipated the lights changing and crossed them the instant they changed - and came a cropper. The lorry shouldn't have been there but it was and I doubt this was an isolated example of a vehicle jumping red lights at this crossing. Starting from rest builds in a delay. Looking left and right also helps as there might be an emergency vehicle about to cross the red lights. Even in my car I always check there is nothing coming and never take a green light as a justification for driving forward. On my bike I am always doubly cautious. Thinking you are in the right can lead to rites being read. Or "Don't claim your rites" as it used to say as you entered Carlisle - and may still do but I haven't been back there for ages to check.

Tonyf33 wrote:The other shows that the cyclist hasn't gone past the light before it turns green..pretty clear cut in fact.

He was well past the STOP line though - he hadn't passed the light on the other side of the road either, but the lights are indicators, the location of their instruction is not determined by their position, but by the road markings...

al_yrpal wrote:I am about to have a play with Chrome remote desktop which will give me access to my old PC and its software..

It will be interesting to hear how you get on. I tried a remote access app on my Android phone and was able to access my PC at home while sitting in a tent in France. It worked, but only after a fashion and used a huge amount of data as you were effectively watching a video of the PC screen.

kwackers wrote:Tonyf33 wrote:but the lorry is in the majority of fault here..Take another look at the traffic going through the lights.

See the bus, taxi and bicycle going through the lights immediately before the lorry? There's an entire stream of traffic going through. Green doesn't mean 'go' it means 'go if your way is clear'. It wasn't but he went anyway despite several vehicles passing through in front of him.

Had the lorry been out there on it's own I'd have a smidgeon of sympathy but it wasn't. It was one vehicle in a queue of traffic going through the lights the cyclist ignored the highway code and simply went on the promise of a green light. IMO 95% his fault.

Another case I remembered. A few years ago a woman was jailed for 4 years for killing a cyclist who'd RLJ'd. The basic premise was she hadn't been paying attention and should have been able to stop. Once again 'green' doesn't mean 'go'.

Anyone who thinks the lorry driver is mainly at fault is guilty of thinking that 'green' means go - which is fair enough, it IS the modern way (at least judging by the amount of horn honking if a vehicle is late clearing a junction).So what? Sorry but there is a very large gap between the taxi & cyclist on the boris bike (whom very likely actually crossed on green but was going slowly that the lights changed) and the 3-4 second red light jumper in the HGV! He wwas on his own..or can you not see the large gap?And amber means stop, red means stop, neither of which the lorry obeyed..in your eyes it would seem that going on a green is worse than not stopping on an amber or a red that has being on for 3+ seconds?

Tonyf33 wrote:but the lorry is in the majority of fault here..Take another look at the traffic going through the lights.

See the bus, taxi and bicycle going through the lights immediately before the lorry? There's an entire stream of traffic going through. Green doesn't mean 'go' it means 'go if your way is clear'. It wasn't but he went anyway despite several vehicles passing through in front of him.

Had the lorry been out there on it's own I'd have a smidgeon of sympathy but it wasn't. It was one vehicle in a queue of traffic going through the lights the cyclist ignored the highway code and simply went on the promise of a green light. IMO 95% his fault.

Another case I remembered. A few years ago a woman was jailed for 4 years for killing a cyclist who'd RLJ'd. The basic premise was she hadn't been paying attention and should have been able to stop. Once again 'green' doesn't mean 'go'.

Anyone who thinks the lorry driver is mainly at fault is guilty of thinking that 'green' means go - which is fair enough, it IS the modern way (at least judging by the amount of horn honking if a vehicle is late clearing a junction).

Lorry has clearly jumped the lights and by a long way, there is a very easy way to prove it giving the timing differential between the light changes.Here are two stills, the lights are already on red/amber and the lorry is behind the stop line so MUST stop by law..there is absolutely no reason for him not to stop, he doesn't and so should be prosecuted.The other shows that the cyclist hasn't gone past the light before it turns green..pretty clear cut in fact.Yes the cyclist was a divvy for not braking but the lorry is in the majority of fault here..

I expect shootist will be along in due course to answer for himself. In the meantime, I'd be interested to hear your own detailed suggestions on how to get a complaint of bad driving investigated by the police and I'm sure others would be too. shootist has made it clear that he bases his advice on his being a retired police officer.

As I've posted more than once before, Martin Porter QC had to write personally to the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Queen's Counsel to Queen's Counsel before he got the police and CPS to take action on a complaint. I mention this to rebut in advance any suggestion that everything is OK in this regard.

pal wrote:The Map Shop is a very good source for Norwegian maps, and also very helpful at advising if you aren't sure quite what you need: http://www.themapshop.co.uk/europe/rest/norway.htm The Nordeca 1:50,000 series covers the whole country -- but probably give more detail than you really need for cycle touring (and the cost mounts up, too!). You can get away with the 1:400,000 'Veikart' maps (4 sheets for the whole country) if you aren't planning on going off-road (to any great extent), and don't mind not knowing how steep the hills will be until you get to them (there's something to be said for ignorance being bliss, actually...). A compromise are the 1:100,000 'special sheets', which show contours, and a bit more detail -- but which don't cover the whole country (there's an index map on the Map Shop webpage).

Re. your question about Bergen: I'd say it's worth visiting -- it's one of my favourite cities in Norway (or anywhere). But: it isn't the nicest city to cycle in or out of, I have to say. It might be worth using a train or boat to avoid slogging through the suburbs? (There's a fast boat route from the end of the Sognefjord down to Bergen [and vice versa]).

I've got the Veikart maps now and they're just what i needed. I've also booked my flights so i'm committed now!

raybo wrote:... specifically, one that bypasses Paiesco, for which there appears to a bypass road. But, the photos on ...... either OFM and Velomap exhibit at least four alternatives:1. A service road2. The river3. A forest path4. The rail

... now, out of jokes and once on the place, I think that alternative 1 or 3 definitely will work !!

reohn2 wrote:The truckdriver is a lunatic but a safe one When the truck driver jumped the lights there was nobody there (as evidenced by the cyclist running into the side of it rather than the truck running over him).

About 15 years ago a guy who lived near me was involved in a crash. He was waiting to turn right at a light controlled cross roads, his light changed to red whilst he was in the middle of the road and he turned after a car had gone through fully expecting the next oncoming car to stop at its red light - it didn't.In similar ways to this it caused considerable debate as to who was to blame. My view was the guy turning right was at fault and when it finally went to court that exactly how they saw it too.

The basic premise is that it's just a junction with the lights offering precedence but precedence doesn't give you the right to pull into the path of another vehicle. The highway code is pretty clear on the meaning of precedence, your duty to avoid an accident and what a green light actually means.

fc101 wrote:That's the risk that eclipse chasers have to face. Even if the skies aren't clear, the experience of travelling to see total solar eclipses is still well worth the effort, and particularly when travelling by bike in remote, less visited parts of the world. People travel from all round the globe to be in just the right place to see probably the most spectacular event in nature. Strongly recommended - but I suspect it's too late for anyone wanting to book now to get to the Faroes for the 20th March.

I was in South Devon for the last one in the UK and we had cloud but it was still a weird experience. The birds flew into the bushes thinking it was time for bed. We had a BBQ in the garden and watched the traffic jams for the rest iof the afternoon as everyone tried to get back home. They would probably have been better on bikes!

reohn2 wrote:JimL wrote:freeflow wrote:My understanding is that if the lights were on amber then this should not have happened until after the other lights had turned to red. On this basis the lorry is very clearly in the wrong and the cyclists not so much.

Agreed. Amber only shows when the other light is at red and the video clearly shows the lorry going through a red light but equally amber doesn't mean go and green means go if clear.

I was always taught that green means proceed with caution.

Neither had a green light,neither were proceeding with caution.

Add to that the cyclist is the most vulnerable road user and in madland UK is a prime target for bullying and abuse.Factor into the equation rule No1:- all other road users are potential lunatics,likely to do anything at any given time and therefore are completely untrustworthy.And rule No2:- things bigger than me when moving can potentially hurt or kill me,so give way to them even if they're totally in the wrong.The cyclist is an idiot.The truckdriver is a lunatic but a safe one

JimL wrote:freeflow wrote:My understanding is that if the lights were on amber then this should not have happened until after the other lights had turned to red. On this basis the lorry is very clearly in the wrong and the cyclists not so much.

Agreed. Amber only shows when the other light is at red and the video clearly shows the lorry going through a red light but equally amber doesn't mean go and green means go if clear.

I was always taught that green means proceed with caution.

Neither had a green light,neither were proceeding with caution.

Add to that the cyclist is the most vulnerable road user and in madland UK is a prime target for bullying and abuse.Factor into the equation rule No1:- all other road users are potential lunatics,likely to do anything at any given time and therefore are completely untrustworthy.And rule No2:- things bigger than me when moving can potentially hurt or kill me,so give way to them even if they're totally in the wrong.The cyclist is an idiot.The truckdriver is a lunatic but a safe one

freeflow wrote:My understanding is that if the lights were on amber then this should not have happened until after the other lights had turned to red. On this basis the lorry is very clearly in the wrong and the cyclists not so much.

Agreed. Amber only shows when the other light is at red and the video clearly shows the lorry going through a red light but equally amber doesn't mean go and green means go if clear.

Seems like a classic case of late and early to me,which is par for the course in madland UK.The amount of motors of all sizes I see driving through amber and red lights is nothing short of phenomenal and a lack of policing to do anything about it means it's going worse.

In that light the cyclist is an idiot pure and simple.If he is unaware of something that big coming he'd be safer walking.

My understanding is that if the lights were on amber then this should not have happened until after the other lights had turned to red. On this basis the lorry is very clearly in the wrong and the cyclists not so much.